Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds nothing about partial vs full updates, what happens to omitted fields, whether changes require permissions, or reversibility. For a mutation tool with 8 params, this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No waste, though the terse field list leaves unexplained items.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations of substance, 0% schema coverage across 8 parameters, and three enum/range-constrained fields, the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It names title, description, target, direction, unit, and weight, but says nothing about their semantics, allowed values, or ranges, and omits initialValue entirely while 'target' does not exactly match the targetValue parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (key result definition) and lists the editable fields. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling update_key_result_value, which the agent must infer from the word 'definition'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the keyResultId prerequisite, and no routing to or away from update_key_result_value or get_key_result. The agent is left to infer the distinction between updating a definition and updating a value.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.